The Brewster

I think I may have suggested this in this past but it occurred to me to bring it up again while looking thru trade options:

Offseason Focused Training

You can spend a flat PP cost to essentially have a player focus on improving a rating that we can't otherwise affect with PP (so can't improve VEL or FLD rating at a specific position). This would be attributes like STU/MOV/CON, CON/GAP/POW/EYE/Avoid K, overall fielding ratings (maybe you want him to spend the offseason strengthening his throwing arm or improve his infield error rating), and individual pitch ratings.

The catch is that it would be a random roll on whether he didn't improve at all, improved at some max amount (could be a modest percentage), or somewhere in between, but it's the same flat PP cost regardless. Maybe you can only use it on young players (old guys are set in their ways) and only once per player. Thoughts?

This should be i the suggestions forum, as I learned when I suggested stuff in "league chatter". Also, I think it's just too potentially unbalancing. Just seems too much like pay to win.

Ted wrote:This should be i the suggestions forum, as I learned when I suggested stuff in "league chatter". Also, I think it's just too potentially unbalancing. Just seems too much like pay to win.

Done. For unbalancing that's why I suggest capping it at some reasonable number. And much of the PP rewards are "pay to win" (of course, it's really "participate more and get rewarded").

Yeah but a lot of the other PP rewards are either gambles or affect things that have little or unclear know effect. If you can make a player go from 7 to 8 contact, even with a randomizer built in, it just seems like too much to me.

This is kind of the line I don't want to step over when it comes to PP Rewards.

recte44 wrote:This is kind of the line I don't want to step over when it comes to PP Rewards.

And thank you for that...

While I wish I could improve the control ratings of some of my pitchers....Ron would have an entire team of 9/9/9/9/9 Hitters and 9/9/9 Pitchers if this was passed, so throwing more strikes really wouldn't matter anyway.

ae37jr wrote:While I wish I could improve the control ratings of some of my pitchers....Ron would have an entire team of 9/9/9/9/9 Hitters and 9/9/9 Pitchers if this was passed, so throwing more strikes really wouldn't matter anyway.

I mean, if you limited it to one improvement per player, and only one player per season, then you don't really have that issue.

Regardless, if this is a line that Matt's not crossing then I support it.

JimBob2232 wrote:

recte44 wrote:This is kind of the line I don't want to step over when it comes to PP Rewards.

And thank you for that...

Lane wrote:

ae37jr wrote:While I wish I could improve the control ratings of some of my pitchers....Ron would have an entire team of 9/9/9/9/9 Hitters and 9/9/9 Pitchers if this was passed, so throwing more strikes really wouldn't matter anyway.

I mean, if you limited it to one improvement per player, and only one player per season, then you don't really have that issue.

Regardless, if this is a line that Matt's not crossing then I support it.

Yeah, that is what I had in mind to keep it in check. But I get the argument for not implementing it.

One player per season per team is 28 per year.

If we ever did go this route(which I'd vote not to), I say make them roll a three sided dice. gain one, stay the same, or regress one.

JimBob2232 wrote:

recte44 wrote:This is kind of the line I don't want to step over when it comes to PP Rewards.

And thank you for that...

ae37jr wrote:If we ever did go this route(which I'd vote not to), I say make them roll a three sided dice. gain one, stay the same, or regress one.

And something like 20% chance gain, 20% change regress, 60% chance no change. You shouldn't be able to simply inject more ratings into your players using PPs. There is always a gain and loss (or at least chance of loss) aspect of PP rewards.